Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
An excellent example of one way the patent system fails!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
I seem to recall that the UK university that patented Carbon fibre patented both
the method and chemicals in one patent. Others very quickly found other
chemicals that did the same thing using the original method.
Because the method, of drawing fibres, was described as using specific chemicals
they were not infringing the patent. Had it been done as two patents, one
describing drawing the fibres and a second one what chemicals to use, copying
the process would have been infringing.
We all know just how quickly carbon fibre became in common use. Would it have
been so if the patents had been filed separately?
In this case it would seem that the use of catalyst is the equivalent of drawing
the fibre. The chemicals have not been disclosed but remain "trade
secret"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
The document you discuss is, as you mention at least twice, an application, not
a granted patent.
You should wait until it becomes a patent (if it ever does) before you hold it
out as an example of absurdity.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scav on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
That should be a fairly harmless patent even with unresolved
ambiguities in the application, since the process as
described cannot possibly work anyway.
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- meh - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
|